Article

A clause-based heuristic for SAT solvers

Authors:

Nachum Dershowitz,

Alexander NadelAuthors Info & Claims

SAT'05: Proceedings of the 8th international conference on Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing

Pages 46 - 60

https://doi.org/10.1007/11499107_4

Published: 19 June 2005 Publication History

Abstract

We propose a new decision heuristic for DPLL-based propositional SAT solvers. Its essence is that both the initial and the conflict clauses are arranged in a list and the next decision variable is chosen from the top-most unsatisfied clause. Various methods of initially organizing the list and moving the clauses within it are studied. Our approach is an extension of one used in Berkmin, and adopted by other modern solvers, according to which only conflict clauses are organized in a list, and a literal-scoring-based secondary heuristic is used when there are no more unsatisfied conflict clauses. Our approach, implemented in the 2004 version of zChaff solver and in a generic Chaff-based SAT solver, results in a significant performance boost on hard industrial benchmarks.

References

[1]

J. Alfredsson. The SAT solver Oepir. URL http: //www.lri.fr/~simon/ contest/ results/ ONLINEBOOKLET/OepirA.ps (viewed January, 16 2005).

[2]

R. Bayardo, Jr., and R. Schrag. Using CSP look-back techniques to solve real-world SAT instances. In Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 203-208, 1997.

Digital Library

[3]

M. Davis, G. Logemann and D. Loveland. A machine program for theorem proving. In Communications of the ACM, (5): 394-397, 1962.

Digital Library

[4]

N. Eén and N. Sörensson. An extensible SAT-solver. In Proceedings of Sixth International Conference on Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing (SAT2003), May 2003.

[5]

E. Goldberg and Y. Novikov. BerkMin: A fast and robust SAT-solver. In Design, Automation, and Test in Europe (DATE '02), p. 142-149, March 2002.

Digital Library

[6]

C.P. Gomes, B. Selman and H. Kautz. Boosting combinatorial search through randomization. In Proceedings of the National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, July 1998.

Digital Library

[7]

R.G. Jeroslaw and J. Wang. Solving propositional satisfiability problems. In Annals of mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, (1):167-187, 1990.

[8]

H. Kautz, B. Selman. Planning as satisfiability. In Proceedings of the 10th European conference on Artificial intelligence, 1992.

Digital Library

[9]

D. Le Berre and L. Simon. Fifty-five solvers in Vancouver: The SAT 2004 competition. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing (SAT2004), volume Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2004. Accepted for publication.

Digital Library

[10]

Y.S. Mahajan, Z. Fu, S. Malik. ZChaff2004: an efficient SAT solver. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing (SAT2004), volume Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 2004. Accepted for publication.

Digital Library

[11]

J.P. Marques-Silva. The impact of branching heuristics in propositional satisfiability algorithms. In Proceedings of the 9th Portuguese Conference on Artificial Intelligence (EPIA), September 1999.

Digital Library

[12]

J.P. Marques-Silva and K.A. Sakallah. GRASP: A search algorithm for propositional satisfiability. IEEE Transactions on Computers, (48):506-521, 1999.

Digital Library

[13]

M. Moskewicz, C. Madigan, Y. Zhao, L. Zhang and S. Malik. Chaff: Engineering an efficient SAT solver. In Proceedings of the Design Automation Conference, 2001.

Digital Library

[14]

M. R. Prasad, A. Biere, A. Gupta. A survey of recent advances in SAT-based formal verification, Intl. Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer (STTT), (7):156- 173, January 2005.

[15]

L. Ryan, Efficient algorithms for clause-learning SAT solvers. Masters thesis, Simon Fraser University, February 2004.

[16]

Seventh International Conference on Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing (SAT2004), May 2004. URL http://satlive.org/SATCompetition/2004/ (viewed September 1, 2004).

[17]

R. Zabih and D.A. McAllester. A rearrangement search strategy for determining propositional satisfiability. In Proceedings of National Conference on Artificial Intelligence, p. 155-160, 1988.

[18]

L. Zhang, C.F. Madigan, M.H. Moskewicz and S. Malik. Efficient conflict driven learning in a boolean satisfiability solver. International Conference on Computer-Aided Design (ICCAD'01), p. 279-285, November 2001.

Digital Library

Cited By

Nadel A(2011)Generating diverse solutions in SATProceedings of the 14th international conference on Theory and application of satisfiability testing10.5555/2023474.2023505(287-301)Online publication date: 19-Jun-2011
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/2023474.2023505
Backes JRiedel MScheffer LPhillips JHu A(2010)Reduction of interpolants for logic synthesisProceedings of the International Conference on Computer-Aided Design10.5555/2133429.2133556(602-609)Online publication date: 7-Nov-2010
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/2133429.2133556
Nadel ABloem RSharygina N(2010)Boosting minimal unsatisfiable core extractionProceedings of the 2010 Conference on Formal Methods in Computer-Aided Design10.5555/1998496.1998537(221-229)Online publication date: 20-Oct-2010
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/1998496.1998537
Show More Cited By

Recommendations

Enhancing Clause Learning by Symmetry in SAT Solvers
ICTAI '10: Proceedings of the 2010 22nd IEEE International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence - Volume 01

The satisfiability problem (SAT) is shown to be the first decision NP-complete problem. It is central in complexity theory. A CNF formula usually contains an interesting number of symmetries. That is, the formula remains invariant under some variable ...
Clause elimination for SAT and QSAT

The famous archetypical NP-complete problem of Boolean satisfiability (SAT) and its PSPACE-complete generalization of quantified Boolean satisfiability (QSAT) have become central declarative programming paradigms through which real-world instances of ...
Clause vivification by unit propagation in CDCL SAT solvers
Abstract
Original and learnt clauses in Conflict-Driven Clause Learning (CDCL) SAT solvers often contain redundant literals. This may have a negative impact on solver performance, because redundant literals may deteriorate both the ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image Guide Proceedings

SAT'05: Proceedings of the 8th international conference on Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing

June 2005

491 pages

ISBN:3540262768

Editors:
Fahiem Bacchus
Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto, Canada
,
Toby Walsh
Dept. of Computer Science, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Canada

Sponsors

INTEL: Intel Corporation
Cadence Design Systems
Microsoft Research: Microsoft Research
Intelligence Information Systems Institute: Intelligence Information Systems Institute
CoLogNet Network of Excellence: CoLogNet Network of Excellence

Publisher

Springer-Verlag

Berlin, Heidelberg

Publication History

Published: 19 June 2005

Qualifiers

Article

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

7
Total Citations
View Citations
0
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)0
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0

Reflects downloads up to 13 Nov 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Nadel A(2011)Generating diverse solutions in SATProceedings of the 14th international conference on Theory and application of satisfiability testing10.5555/2023474.2023505(287-301)Online publication date: 19-Jun-2011
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/2023474.2023505
Backes JRiedel MScheffer LPhillips JHu A(2010)Reduction of interpolants for logic synthesisProceedings of the International Conference on Computer-Aided Design10.5555/2133429.2133556(602-609)Online publication date: 7-Nov-2010
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/2133429.2133556
Nadel ABloem RSharygina N(2010)Boosting minimal unsatisfiable core extractionProceedings of the 2010 Conference on Formal Methods in Computer-Aided Design10.5555/1998496.1998537(221-229)Online publication date: 20-Oct-2010
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.5555/1998496.1998537
Pipatsrisawat KDarwiche A(2010)On Modern Clause-Learning Satisfiability SolversJournal of Automated Reasoning10.1007/s10817-009-9156-344:3(277-301)Online publication date: 1-Mar-2010
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/s10817-009-9156-3
Nadel ARyvchin V(2010)Assignment stack shrinkingProceedings of the 13th international conference on Theory and Applications of Satisfiability Testing10.1007/978-3-642-14186-7_35(375-381)Online publication date: 11-Jul-2010
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/978-3-642-14186-7_35
Bordeaux LHamadi YZhang L(2006)Propositional Satisfiability and Constraint ProgrammingACM Computing Surveys10.1145/1177352.117735438:4(12-es)Online publication date: 25-Dec-2006
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/1177352.1177354
Zuim Rde Sousa JCoelho CCoelho CJacobi RBecker J(2006)A fast SAT solver algorithm best suited to reconfigurable hardwareProceedings of the 19th annual symposium on Integrated circuits and systems design10.1145/1150343.1150380(131-136)Online publication date: 28-Aug-2006
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/1150343.1150380

View Options

View options

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Table of Contents